Is the sugar beet crop sustainable in England?

1. Is the sugar beet crop sustainable in England? Keith Jaggard Broom’s Barn Research Station Rothamsted Research Please do NOT quote without author’s permission

2. Scope: • UK beet sugar industry • Biodiversity & pesticide impact • Soil & water • Energy • Economics • Politics & world trade

3. UK beet sugar industry: • Products are c. 1.3Mt sucrose, 0.8Mt dried animal feed, 0.4Mt lime, 0.6Mt soil, betaine and vinasse (a K fertilizer), electricity and heat for glasshouses, • 6 factories • 7,100 growers using 150,000 ha • 20,000 jobs in sugar and supply industries

4. The distribution of beet crops in the UK, 2000

5. Bury beet sugar factory

6. The crop: • Sown March, harvested September – January, processed September to end February (c. 160 days) • Average yields c. 50t/ha beet at 17-19% sugar content (9t/ha sucrose) • Grown on well drained soils, mostly in eastern England • Typically c. 19 man hours/ha

7. Beet seed drill

11. Environment impact assessment • Joint project with Hertfordshire University assessed: • impact & fate of pesticides • fate of N fertilizer • energy consumption & CO2 production • global warming potential • Used 13 crop production scenarios in 3 UK regions • Used typical beet crop habitat

12. Scenario 1 Sandy soil, limed and dressed with organic manure, ploughed and pressed in February, drilled in March. Granular insecticide at drilling and sprayed 4x to control weeds, once to control diseases. Given 80kg N/ha, hoed once, irrigated 2x. Harvested December at 50t/ha. Scenario 11 Peat soil, fertilized with P, K, Mg in October, ploughed December, cultivated February and sown with cover crop to control wind erosion. Sown early April with insecticide-treated seed and given 30kg N/ha. Sprayed 7x to kill weeds and cover crop, 2 of these sprays contained Mn, one B. Sprayed 1x with fungicide. Harvest 60t/ha mid October.

13. Pesticide risk assessments made using pEMA p-EMA models dispersion pathways of pesticides in the environment to estimate the concentrations to which organisms will be exposed. These concentrations, and their toxicity to the organisms, are used to calculate risk indices. This follows the procedures used in UK regulatory assessments

14. Specific Risks

15. Scenario I & II AldicarbMetamitron

16. Scenario XI & XII MetamitronParaquat (in PDQ)PhenmediphamImidacloprid

17. Frequency ofenvironments adjacent to beet fields

18. Pesticides contributing most to risk

19. Average ecotoxicity score

20. Groundwater • No significant risk to groundwater in any Scenario • Lenacil was at most risk of leaching into groundwater, but was still in the acceptable band

21. Fate of N fertilizer • Nitrate leaching trivial: 0.3-7kg/ha • Denitrification: large losses (6-56kgN/ha, mean of 15kg/ha) associated with organic manures (applied to 30% of beet area). • Important consequences of N2O production for global warming.

22. Energy consumption • Considered input manufacture, cultural operations, transport and machinery manufacture • Input ranged from15-25 GJ/ha, with a mean of 20.4 at the factory gate • Output in delivered beet ranges from 150-220 GJ/ha • Output/input ratio 6-13

23. Energy consumption and GWP

24. Soil conservation • Wind erosion was an expensive problem; now mostly controlled by cover crops or minimum tillage • Water erosion: within field movement in 15% of beet fields, where average redistribution is 0.3mm/ha, but this is concentrated in vulnerable patches • Soil lost during beet delivery: c. 2.7mm in 50 years, but this is recycled

25. Economics: price structure • Current beet price c. £30/t of quota • Payments made for early and late delivery and an allowance for delivery costs • Beet surplus to quota makes sugar which must be exported outside the EC. Current value c. £5/t

26. Current profitability • 13 beet production scenarios • Assume 10% of beet is surplus • Calculate net margins • Range from £256/ha to £784/ha: most variation due to yield differences. Weighted average £560/ha • Real returns are less if proportion of surplus beet is larger

27. Comparison of gross margins: 2001 (£/ha) • Includes area payment (£200-250) • Source: Lang, 2002

28. Whole farm performance: 2001 (£/ha) Source: Lang, 2002

29. Politics and World Trade • 2006 review EU Sugar Regime • Regime sets national quotas • Guarantees price for quota sugar • 1.1Mt tariff-free sugar from ACP • Surplus exported outside EU • But • EU quota more than consumption • WTO unhappy

30. Review Options • Consider impact on environment • then: • ‘Status quo’…but quota and price reduced • Reduced quota – perhaps SFP compensation – quota phased out • ‘Free market’ – first preference of Oxfam and NGO’s

32. Brazil • World price c.10c/lb • Production for export up from c. 1 to14 Mt since 1990 • Meanwhile Australian industry on its knees

33. Alternative uses • Potential biofuel source • Sugar is the simplest starting point for bioethanol manufacture • Used for ETBE production in France • Proven agriculture • Potential to simplify and cheapen sugar extraction in a mixed facility

34. Conclusions • Sustainable ecologically and economically • Endangered politically • Possible use as biofuel